Cosmos~ Liturgy~ Sex: The Importance of Preaching the Truth

We Moved! You will automatically be redirected to the new site in 3 seconds. If your browser doesn't automatically load, click HERE. Cosmos~ Liturgy~ Sex: The Importance of Preaching the Truth

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

The Importance of Preaching the Truth

Here is an article on an issue related to our earlier discussion about marriage and divorce: in this article Archbishop Gregory seems to be hinting that he would opt for pastoral expedience over truth. Unfortunately, instead of the Archbishop explaining the teaching, he essentially says yea I know what the Church says but what do we say to the great folks who are divorced, remarried outside of the Church and now suffer because they cannot go to communion? I suggest the truth. Certainly, the truth in a loving, compassionate, and understandable way, but the truth. The same truth that if taught to them as children growing up, and in their pre-cana classes, in their adult education classes, in counseling during their marriage struggles, etc. then many may not be in this sad situation. Now that they are, they need to know that the situation in which they find themselves is problematic. They need to know that it is not simply a rule that prevents them from full communion with the Church but an action they took and remain in that is causing the situation. They need also to know their options, as difficult as they are. Look, I do not want to appear as though I have no compassion for those who find themselves in the situation. Not too long ago I sat heartbroken with feelings of complete helplessness, watching someone I love dearly cry because he finds himself in this situation and his wife is unwilling to do anything to reconcile it. If this were simply a matter of discipline, I would be the first to argue for a change. But it is not. The sad reality is that those Catholics who are living with someone not married to them in the Church have by that very act, separated themselves from communion with God and the Church. The most charitable thing to do is to ensure that they recognize this, and do not sin further by attempting communion without reconciling their situation. As I said, they also need to know their options, as difficult as they are. I do believe that if I found myself in this situation today, knowing what I know about the Eucharist and the truth of marriage, and if there were children involved, I would take the option of living together as brother and sister; I would at least want to know about this possibility. What positive can come from this tragedy which results especially from the poor catechesis and generally poor spiritual leadership over the last 40 years or so? I suggest that the bishops of the world ought to take this very painful experience as motivation to help ensure it does not happen to those not yet in this situation. They ought to ensure strong catechesis about the reality of the Sacraments and the indissolubility of marriage. They ought to ensure stronger and longer marriage preparation classes. They ought to refuse to marry those who are ill prepared, especially those who are living together (a sure recipe for divorce). They ought provide programs to educate those already married about meaning of married life and their vocation to holiness through marriage. They need to make the Church present in the lives of families before divorce happens. The failure to address the cultural situation in which the Church finds herself, lead to the kinds of questions that Archbishop Gregory so inappropriately and publicly posits aloud to the press. I know, all this is easier said than done . . . but that does not change the fact that done, it must be. As you might have detected, this inappropriate type of talk from leaders of the Church always disturbs me. It does nothing other than to sow seeds of confusion and to fan the flames of dissent from Church authority. O.k., I’m done. (P.S. - I do not want to minimize personal responsibility of those in these situations but the focus here is of course, the importunity of the Archbishop's comments).

14 Comments:

islandcatholic said...: Make no apologies David, you are precisely correct in your analysis since I am quite certain that your comments are in perfect harmony with the Catechism.
Truth is to be faced...in fact it demands acknowledgement before there can be any spiritual advance. Circumventing truth got us where we are today. Dissent is simply one more variety of "acceptable" circumvention.; 10/19/2005 09:21:00 PM
Anonymous said...: THE TRUTH!!! THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!; 10/20/2005 05:12:00 AM
Todd said...: Walk a mile, my friends.

I think the truth of it is that people see their own marriages begin and end in the bedroom where they refrain from contraception, and can wax eloquently about all those sinners out there who have not lived as virtuously as they themselves have.

If your own witness hasn't been more public in the parish, more supporting of engaged couples or young marrieds, and if your parish doesn't make efforts to assist marriages in this way, I think you're missing a chunk of the truth.

But that's in keeping with the difficulty some people have with it.; 10/20/2005 06:56:00 AM
islandcatholic said...: Todd, what exactly are you saying? Do you think David was mistaken or looking down his nose at the people "who have not lived as virtuously as themselves?"
You haven't addressed any of his arguments, which I believe were offered in love as well as in truth, so can you elaborate?; 10/20/2005 11:14:00 AM
Todd said...: ic, fair enough.

We also have an Eastern tradition that recognizes marriages, even those entered with good preparation and intentions, can fail. An Orthodox approach would be to permit one remarriage, but not as a sacrament.

I read David's link to open book, and I saw nothing to suggest Archbishop Gregory said anything inappropriate. If anything, it's good to see the clergy struggling with lay people in difficult circumstances.

I think the responsibility for good marriages in the Christian community rest with more than bishops and pastors. That sounds like buck-passing to me. In previous generations, extended family assisted young married couples. I'd like to see and hear more than pious platitudes from the Catholic Right. Plus an acknowledgement that the perfectly valid sacramental life of the East treats this situation a bit differently than Rome.; 10/20/2005 02:36:00 PM
Todd said...: "That" in the post above refers to David's third paragraph making suggestions to bishops, btw.; 10/20/2005 02:38:00 PM
Hierothee said...: Todd,

First, your implicit reduction of David's disquisition to "pious platitude" is a mere ad hominem attack without any merit. It does not touch the core of the issue; it asserts the untenable nature of a truth claim (rooted firmly in the Gospel) based on the presumed hypocrisy of its claimant(s). It is similar in its evasiveness to the "argument" made by qualitarians that the pro-life position is untenable because pro-lifers obstinately refuse to care for children after their birth.

Second, the West should not take its lessons in these matters from the East. The West has remained more faithful than the East to the Gospel on this issue. Moreover, in general, the East faces its own pastoral nightmares as a result of its general "oikonomia" approach to concrete moral and sacramental issues. We can appreciate their liturgical expressions and mystical theology (though their tendency to Origenism, to the extent that it manifests itself, detaches them from the Gospel), but they are proving themselves to be in a state of collapse in the face of the great moral crises of the day.; 10/20/2005 05:35:00 PM
David said...: I feel so left out of the conversation...I suppose that is what I get for when I post.

Island and Hiérothée addressed well most of Todd's complaints but I thought I would throw in my addition couple of cents worth on a couple of items.

the Catholic Right
Todd - you will have to explain your terminology. Using political terminology which is held over from the seating convention of the French legislative assemblies during the late 18th century seems to me to be an opaque obfuscation. Do you intend it simply as a polemical attack? Do you mean those obedient to the Magisterium? Do you mean Catholics who are registered Republicans? Please clarify.

an acknowledgement that the perfectly valid sacramental life of the East
If you can show that the Orthodox practice of oikonomia with regard to divorce and remarriage is codified in the Canon Law for Eastern Catholic Churches than I would be more than willing to acknowledge the practice as valid.

That sounds like buck-passing to me.
This phrase indicates to me a confused ecclesiology. The laity have no buck to pass. Sure, there is personal responsibility to help the pastor and bishop as one's states in life permit. Sure, there is ample room for lay apostolates in this regard. In fact, there is no shortage of these. However, as the Second Vatican Council’s document on the laity indicates, the laity’s proper role is the sanctification of the temporal world. The fact is, the spiritual leadership of the diocese rests ultimately on the shoulders of the bishop and for the parish, the pastor. This is not only theological truth and canonical fact, it is practical reality. I have lived in (and visited) many different parishes in all parts of the world in my life. I have seen that, without exception, what the pastor thinks is important and pushes, has the best response, what programs the pastor does not actively support (this is not even the case where he refuses to let people meet on parish property) do not flourish. The only way to change things is with the bishop's and their pastors' active involvement. This is not buck passing, it is asking for them to work on fixing the problem at the front end rather than pleading for inadmissible workarounds at the back end.; 10/20/2005 07:17:00 PM
Todd said...: Okay.

A few things:

The Orthodox East has perfectly valid sacraments. I'm not saying we need to adopt their entire praxis, but the fact that they permit divorce and remarriage should give pause to any notion that no communion for the divorced and remarried is the Lord's commandment. It's an item worth studying, not summarily dismissing or adopting.

Given that many marriages break up over temporal affairs: money, addictions, mental illness, desire for other sexual outlets I'm shocked at the notion that none of this constitutes the temporal world. Most marriages exist in the secular sphere. Many clergy are clueless when it comes to the joys and sorrows of married life.

People who criticize others have a moral obligation to walk with them in their struggles before passing summary judgment on what is or is not accpetable moral or sacramental behavior.

Married couples have an obligation to other couples in their communities. If they think their sacrametnal responsibilities begin and end in the bedroom or in the homestead, they are mistaken.

I wouldn't suggest David and his wife do not exercise their apostolate with other married couples. If they did, they would realize it takes a lot more than "Father says so" to convince couples to take a higher road.

The Catholic Right, by whom I mean Catholics who have allowed secular conservative trends in society to color, if not compromise their expression of faith, will have to do a hell of a lot more than preach, "Listen to Father" if they want to make headway on this issue.

My wife and I have been active in ME, and have also been involved in parish preparation of couples for marriage. Trust me on this one: three meetings and a nuptial Mass with a priest isn't going to get the job done.; 10/21/2005 11:25:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Todd,
Why is it automatically assumed that those who faithfully follow the teachings of the Church "criticize" or "eloquently wax" those who don't? Graces are God's free gifts and should be seen as such.; 10/21/2005 06:06:00 PM
David said...: It's an item worth studying, not summarily dismissing or adopting.
The oikonomia is the Orthodox basis for allowing such things as divorce and remarriage with continued access to the Sacraments, as well as other morally objectionable things. It is nothing more than a concession to human weaknesses saying that God will work around sinful acts of man. It all works out in the economy of salvation. This is not something worth seriously considering.

I wouldn't suggest David and his wife do not exercise their apostolate with other married couples. If they did, they would realize it takes a lot more than "Father says so" to convince couples to take a higher road.
I make my share of incoherent prose so I am not complaining here, but I do not understand what you are saying. However, if you are saying that my position that the clergy must take the position of leadership necessarily reduces to a positive legalism in presentation of the truth of the human person and marriage then I would suggest that you have a seriously mistaken view of leadership. Since it seems that you attribute this view to me, I don't quite understand how you would know this.

People who criticize others have a moral obligation to walk with them in their struggles before passing summary judgment on what is or is not acceptable moral or sacramental behavior.
Todd this is a seriously mistaken view. It matters not what a person suffers or experiences in order to judge whether his objective behavior is morally licit or not. Subjectivity only comes into play in determining the degree of moral culpability and this is a matter solely for the person and his confessor to worry about. However, it certainly is every Catholic's responsibility to discern and fraternally correct illicit behavior, prudence duly considered. You are confusing the sinner for the sin I am afraid.

The Catholic Right, by whom I mean Catholics who have allowed secular conservative trends in society to color,
Fair enough definition, I can accept this definition although it is not a universal one. However, I would suggest that you jump too quickly in assuming you know someone’s motivation and then assigning a cause. It perhaps would be more informative to explore the specifics of the issue first to ascertain the motivation. I am often called liberal by conservatives and conservative by liberals. However, I reject both classifications. My political sensibilities are formed solely by the teachings of the Church as articulated by the Magisterium. If you are calling me a conservative then I would suspect I know why?

My wife and I have been active in ME, and have also been involved in parish preparation of couples for marriage. Trust me on this one: three meetings and a nuptial Mass with a priest isn't going to get the job done.
Good for you and your wife. I trust that you both are faithful to the wisdom of the Church in your involvement with marriage encounter. However, you again seem to be jumping to unwarranted conclusions based upon unfounded presuppositions. You will have to refer me to the exact text that you are caricaturing as the suggestion that someone here is advocating three meetings and a nuptial Mass as the extent of necessary marriage preparation. In fact, I think I recommended one of the things that needed to happen was extending the marriage preparation time. However, the current approaches, engaged encounter, pre-cana, FOCUS, etc. are all not hacking the program for various reasons. They need to be greatly enhanced.; 10/21/2005 09:12:00 PM
Todd said...: David, I think we just agree to disagree.

I don't see remarried couples potentially or actually taking Communion as always a moral issue.

I don't think clergy are the best people to be fronting church teaching on marriage and sexuality. To that end, married couples, especially concerned married couples, are obligated by baptism to assist in the building of an environment in which divorce or entering into a poorly considered marriage is a poorer option than it is at present. If we had to make the choice (admittedly a false one) good couples would be better preparers for the sacrament than good priests. Why? Because ...

I think we're in agreement that more preparation is needed for helping couples make good marriages. But it's more than a head-thing (Father says... the Church teaches ...). Marriage is a way of life, and a better model for adults in adopting such a way of life is to imitate the pros. Just as love alone isn't enough, neither are official or pious words.

The traditional approach just doesn't seem to be working for the West. That's why, I suspect, the bishops discussed it openly. A stance might be right from the absolutist view, but it can still be a failure if there's a block in communication.

Humanae Vitae is a failure in that respect, not because it taught the wrong thing, but because it's framers couldn't say the right thing in the right way so as to convince others of the truth. The same is true for the Catholic position on divorce and remarriage. The position is a failure, but not because its wrong. It fails because it's ineffective. Lack of 100% effectivity might be fine for couples such as yours and mine because we won't divorce or practice contraception. But as a Catholic, I have to be concerned about a lot more than my own (supposed) virtue.

In part, that's why I take issue with your suggestion "(Gregory) essentially says yea I know what the Church says but ...", with your singular emphasis on teaching and rules, with your overstating an otherwise good point: " ... living together (a sure recipe for divorce)." and your unproven conviction, "It does nothing other than to sow seeds of confusion and to fan the flames of dissent ..."

Other than that, I think we're in good agreement on a body of things.; 10/22/2005 02:17:00 PM
David said...: David, I think we just agree to disagree. I don't see remarried couples potentially or actually taking Communion as always a moral issue.

Todd- this is not a disagreement between you and I but rather a disagreement between you and the Magisterium. Are you are trying to convince me that I ought to believe you rather than the Church on this one?

I don't think clergy are the best people to be fronting church teaching on marriage and sexuality.

Now this is really a matter of prudence. You may be correct but I would say that this is painting with too broad a brush. Some may be very good at it and some not so good. My current boss was never married but he teaches a very effective marriage class, better than any I have seen from a married person. You seem to be saying that unless someone experiences it he is not qualified to talk about it. I disagree. That may give you empathy but not knowledge. If experience were necessary then you would not want to go to a marriage counselor who has not experienced a divorce, or a psychiatrist for depression unless he has experience depression?

with your singular emphasis on teaching and rules, with your overstating an otherwise good point

I don't know exactly what you mean here. I have a singular emphasis on the truth. Rules are good because they help us to understand the truth and reflect much wisdom. Ignoring them often reflects a overly juridical mindset that does not understand their purpose or their rationale. It is true that the truth can be used as a club, that is not what I am advocating. I have not mentioned anything about specific methods. I simply have been discussing the damage that a Church leader does when he implies that the Church is in error on a point of doctrine, which is what we have here.

Todd - I would suspect that we may not be too far apart on this if we discussed specifics but I do think that there is still a great gulf in our view of truth and the authority of the Church.; 10/22/2005 09:55:00 PM
Todd said...: "I do think that there is still a great gulf in our view of truth and the authority of the Church."

Actually, I suspect not. I think we agree on the truth of the sacrament of marriage. I think we each acknowledge the Magisterium. We're both Roman Catholics and ther is no gulf. Trust me on that.

Where we differ is a view of church history, political ideology, and some theology. Some factual things we debate about. Some prudential things, too.

I think it's perfectly within bounds to question magisterial teaching on divorce and remarriage while not violating said teaching. Does it encourage others to disobey? Probably not in this setting at St Blog's. The notion that Archbishop Gregory would somehow "sow seeds of confusion and to fan the flames of dissent," as you said, is probably attributing more credence to one interpretation of his statement than divorced and remarried will give it--even if it crosses their path. I suspect it was more a matter of causing dismay for you. Which is a far different and utterly more personal thing than giving optimism to people who have likely already made their decision to remarry and either leave or stay in the Church's sacramental life.

Good blog, btw, in case I haven't mentioned it before.; 10/23/2005 06:15:00 PM

Cosmos~ Liturgy~ Sex

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

The Importance of Preaching the Truth

14 Comments:

Contributors

Previous Posts